What an Information System Is,
and Why Is It Important to Know This
Ray J Paul
Department of Information Systems and Computing,
Brunel University
Uxbridge,
Middlesex UB8 3PH, U.K.
[email protected]
“In a narrow sense, the term information
system (or computer-based information system)
refers to the specific application software that is
used to store data records in a computer system
and automates some of the informationprocessing activities of the organization.
Computer-based information systems are in the
field of information technology.”
So now it appears that Information Systems is
a part of Information Technology. In mitigation
for Wikipedia, there is a warning box at the top
of the first page, which says
“This article is in need of attention from an
expert on the subject.”
So it is clear that what an Information System
is, is not clear. The two words ‘information
system’ are common currency in discussions and
publications, but a common understanding does
not even vaguely exist. For some it is a unique
subject for study, for others it is research into
information technology, for others it is just
another computer system, and for some it is the
system that records stores and retrieves all the
information that a host organisation needs to
survive. Such a variety of interpretations, whilst
seemingly never capable of becoming reduced to
just one that is universally accepted, means that
our faltering ability to provide the system an
organisation needs is severely limited. This paper
argues than an elementary description of what an
information system actually is, as it is used in
practice whether wisely or not, can be readily
described. This description or definition, because
it can be seen to be all embracing and
straightforward, can then be used as the basis for
describing the variety of aspects of information
systems given above. For example, to study
information system as a topic could be the
business of identifying the various systems
inherent in any organisation, and matching the
dynamic nature of the organisations systems to
the ongoing updating of the information system
to keep up with organisational change. For those
Abstract. There are many different views on
what the term Information Systems means. This
paper provides a simple explanation of what an
Information System is in practice to assist in
clarifying the confusion. If this simple
explanation were widely understood, then
current difficulties with Information Systems
development, practical problems with ongoing
Information Systems, the applicability of much
Information System’s research, and a general
lack of awareness of the potential for the
academic study of Information Systems, could all
be improved upon. The description of what a
practical Information System turns out to be is
given, and the reasons why its major features
exist and are important are discussed.
Implications arising from the acceptance of this
definition are offered.
Keywords: Information Systems; Information
Systems Development
1. Preamble
This paper describes what an Information
System (I.S.) is in practice. This is a bold claim
to make about the term ‘Information System’
since there are many definitions already, which
put together generally confuse an understanding
of what the term means. For example, at the time
of writing, Wikipedia offered
“In a general sense, the term information
system (IS) refers to a system of people, data
records and activities that process the data and
information in an organization, and it includes
the organization's manual and automated
processes.”
So an I.S. includes Information Technology
(the latter part of the sentence from ‘data
records...’ onwards). But the next and third
sentences in the same opening paragraph says
27
st
Proceedings of the ITI 2009 31 Int. Conf. on Information Technology Interfaces, June 22-25, 2009, Cavtat, Croatia
business alongside the human decisions that are
made by the users gives a system that exists at
that point in time, which is defined as the I.S. at
that point in time.
This latter point is crucial to what this paper
means by an I.S., because it underlies the way an
organisation should think of its I.S. and hence
how it nurtures it; and it explains why there are
so many spectacular failures or disappointments
in the development of I.S. So an I.S. is not a
static system, but it changes with the passage of
time; in other words it is dynamic.
The I.T. contains all the formal rules of the
system, plus the data/information values at the
point of time being considered. The user
remembers the informal rules of the system,
which will be being added to with system use,
since it is not possible to do business with just
the formal rules. This is because it is impossible
to find a set of formal rules that covers all
possible future situations (this point is argued
further below). At any point in time, the set of
up-to-date data and information stored in the I.T.
in combination with the set of ad hoc rules
derived by the users over time is the I.S. at that
point in time.
researching into the use of information
technology, an information system definition
would separate their contribution to information
system
constant
evolution;
presumably
concentrating on using the continuing capability
of information technology to accurately and
speedily store, record and retrieve information.
Since the meaning of what an Information
System is unclear, and different meanings have
different interpretations for different adherents,
how can this paper be so definitive (see first
sentence of the main body of the paper above)?
So let us assume that what is about to be
described may not be acceptable as the meaning
of ‘Information System’ to those who already
have decided upon a definition that is too
different to the one in this paper. This in a sense
is all just terminology. If we call whatever it is
that this paper is describing as an ‘Investigative
Surrogate’ for an Information System then the
shorthand ‘I.S.‘ can be taken to mean either
‘Information
System’
or
‘Investigative
Surrogate’ as the reader so chooses. The
argument about what an Information System is
now unnecessary.
So, if the reader decides on I.S. either being
an Information System or an Investigative
Surrogate, without loss of generality the
argument can now proceed
3. An I.S. as a Model
If this view of looking at I.S. is still not clear,
then consider that the I.S. is just a model of the
organisation at some level of abstraction,
approximation and aggregation. Then, if the
organisation is changing (and if it is not, then
eventually it will be a dinosaur and meet the
equivalent fate), then the model should change
with the organisation.
So the model should change in line with the
organisation’s change, otherwise the I.S. is
merely a historical version of the I.S.
Of course, if the model were built to cover all
changes in the future, then it could be keeping up
with organisational change. After all, the I.S. as
has been portrayed in the argument so far has to
have its purpose fulfilled by sometimes using ad
hoc decisions by the user(s). Why not capture all
the ad hoc rules in advance? A simple example is
given next (The Raft of the Medusa) to show
why this cannot happen in practice.
2. An I.S. for Any Organisation
Any organisation will have a way of
recording,
manipulating
and
recalling
data/information. It could trivially be just a
pencil and paper, but since such systems if they
are interesting are likely to be complex, or
troublesome, then we assume there is a computer
system of some level of sophistication and some
software that makes it work (operating systems,
application packages etc.). This combination
would be generally universally accepted as being
called Information technology (I.T.), although
some might think it broader than that. Taking
I.T. to be this combination of hardware and
software, which is the delivery mechanism for
the I.S., then in order for anything to happen,
some action needs to take place to trigger activity
in the I.T. This action is usually the human using
the I.T. to conduct the affairs of the organisation,
sometimes as internal activity, and sometimes
with external interactions (with the ‘customers’
of the organisation, be it patients, the public,
military platforms or just business). The
combination of the use of the I.T. to run the
4. The Raft of the Medusa
The Raft of the Medusa is a painting hanging
in the Louvre, which was painted in 1819 by
28
Géricault. The Louvre has this to say about the
painting (Géricault, 1819):
“The Raft of the Medusa—a major work in
French 19th-century painting—is generally
regarded as an icon of Romanticism. It depicts an
event whose human and political aspects greatly
interested Géricault: the wreck of a French
frigate off the coast of Senegal in 1826, with
over 150 soldiers on board. …
Géricault drew his inspiration from the
account of two survivors of the Medusa—a
French Royal Navy frigate that set sail in 1816 to
colonize Senegal. It was captained by an officer
of the Ancien Régime who had not sailed for
over twenty years and who ran the ship aground
on a sandbank. Due to the shortage of lifeboats,
those who were left behind had to build a raft for
150 souls—a construction that drifted away on a
bloody 13-day odyssey that was to save only 10
lives. The disaster of the shipwreck was made
worse by the brutality and cannibalism that
ensued.
Géricault decided to represent the vain hope
of the shipwrecked sailors: the rescue boat is
visible on the horizon—but sails away without
seeing them.
The whole composition is oriented toward
this hope in a rightward ascent culminating in a
black figure, the figurehead of the boat. The
painting stands as a synthetic view of human life
abandoned to its fate.”
The Louvre website mentions some debate
about the painting, but Julian Barnes undertakes
a wider discussion in Chapter 5 of his book
(Barnes, 1995). Part 1 of the chapter is a full
description of the shipwreck and the events
surrounding the raft. Part II of the chapter is a 16
page discussion about the painting, what it
depicts and does not depict, how one can
interpret what is in the painting, what is missing,
and what should not be there. To give some
examples:
The Medusa striking the reef;
•
The moment when the tow-ropes were
cast off and the raft abandoned;
•
The mutiny in the night;
•
The necessary cannibalism;
•
The self-protective mass murder;
•
The arrival of the butterfly;
The survivors up to their waists, or
calves, or ankles in water;
•
The actual moment of rescue."
Quote 2. “The Medusa was a shipwreck, a
news story and a painting; it was also a cause.
Bonapartists
attacked
Monarchists.
The
behaviour of the frigate’s captain illuminated a)
the incompetence and corruption of the Royalist
Navy; b) the general callousness of the ruling
class towards those beneath them.”
The Louvre quote above speaks of hope
fading. Barnes questions this:
Quote 3. “The ship is on the horizon; the sun
is also on the horizon (though unseen). Lighting
it up with yellow. Sunrise we deduce, and the
ship arriving with the sun, bringing a new day,
hope and rescue; the black clouds overhead (very
black) will soon disappear. However, what if it
were sunset? Dawn and dusk are easily confused.
What if it were sunset, with the ship about to
vanish like the sun, and the castaways facing
hopeless night, as black as the clouds overhead?
Puzzled, we might look at the raft’s sail to see if
the machine was being blown towards or away
from its rescuer, and to judge if that baleful cloud
is about to be dispelled. … Then, still undecided,
a third possibility occurs; it could be sunrise, yet
even so the rescuing vessel is not coming
towards the shipwrecked. This would be the
plainest rebuff of all from fate: the sun is rising
but not for you.”
The painting has, amongst other unexpected
portrayals, some feature of the people on the raft
that Barnes picks up on:
Quote 4. “So go on, let’s ask. Why do the
survivors look so healthy? … But why does
everyone - even the corpses – look so muscled,
so … healthy? Where are the wounds, the scars,
the haggardness, the disease?” Of the 15 men on
the raft, 5 of them did not survive their rescue
very long. “So why do they look as if they have
just come from a body-building class”
The relevance to this discussion of I.S. is as
follows. Géricault painted a picture representing
the shipwreck. Barnes’s first quote shows that he
had a lot of choice as to how to represent the
story, and the choices are very different. So
although all viewers had the chance to read the
story before seeing the picture, and although at
first sight the picture might convey the essence
of the story, there are in fact many other
Quote 1. “Let us start with what he did not
paint. He did not paint:
•
•
29
An I.S. is I.T. in Use
plausible pictures that could have found equal
favour. So when considering what system to
build, what are the alternative structurings of the
system that might be equally acceptable, but are
very different?
Barnes’s second quote shows that even with
the best intentions, the politics of the
organisation can have a large opinion-based
impact on the system about to be built. It is often
quoted that user participation in systems
development leads to greater system success.
There is no evidence for this; Bokhari and Paul
(2009) discuss a meta-analysis of 90 papers on
this subject, and the conclusion was there is no
relationship. And this may be one reason why
this may not be so: user participation allows
political views to be incorporated into system
development and thus allows some users to take
advantage.
The thirds quote is even more unsettling. The
painting is a two-dimensional static object that
can be viewed by anyone, and the picture seen by
the viewers is the same. Only, it is not as the
quote shows. If two people cannot agree on what
they see when looking at a two-dimensional
static physical object, what chance is there of
them agreeing to some future conceptual object
in more than two dimensions and which is
dynamic? Now if two or more people thought
they were agreeing with each other, how would
they know if this were true or not? This quote
shows that users ‘cannot know what they want’
which makes requirements engineering an
oxymoron in these situations.
The fourth quote, which is to do with the
artist’s interest in physiology at the time he made
the painting, shows that the system being
developed is open to abuse by the developers
who can orientate the development around their
pet technical approach at the time of
development.
The ‘In Use’ part of the definition can be
interpreted as the time dimension, as well as the
human dimension since the I.T. is in use when
users are using it, and the usage is a function of
time.
A close analogy to this understanding of I.S.
is that of Gardening. Gardening is an activity that
can consume as much time as you are willing to
give it. A garden is constantly changing; it’s
never the same twice. To try and determine
exactly what you want a garden to look like is
pointless because it never stands still. It will have
some basic architecture:
•
Some paths
•
Some lawn space,
•
Some flower beds,
•
Some vegetable/fruit patches,
•
Some trees
In the short term these will be fixed, as would
some of the basic components and software for
the I.T. This architecture would represent the
current overview of the organisation’s activities.
Note that all the above gardening structures are
changeable, but any change would be a major
effort, maybe suitable to a project approach.
Similarly the creation of the basic architecture
might also suit a project approach.
But within the basic architecture, constant
change is taking place and has to be dealt with.
Paths (communications) need maintaining else
they will break up. Lawns need cutting, as does
the build up of wasted storage in the I.T. system.
Flower beds, and vegetable patches are very
personal, the choice of what to put in and to
remove being a matter of personal taste – as with
the ad hoc rules for running the system as needs
change. The formal structures must not be
allowed to outgrow their environment, as with
tree growth which can overwhelm a garden. No
gardener is ever satisfied with the garden, there
is always a mixture of trivial, debugging, and
remedial and structural changes to plan and carry
out, always planning for the future garden.
And so on. Unless a garden is dealt with in
this way, it will grow wild and only be
interesting from an environmentally friendly
perspective, although the neighbours might not
be too pleased. A wild I.T. system is often what
5. A Simple Definition of I.S. and a
Simple Analogy
Since it is not possible to build an IT system
that caters for future changes, then we have to
consider the combined effect of all parts of the
system when considering aspects of the I.S. at
any point in time. Since the explanation of what
an I.S. is can seem a bit cumbersome, a short
approximate definition is offered which if
translated properly, gets you back to a full
understanding. The definition is
30
Surrogate should now appear to be less
controversial. Information Systems is an
appropriate term for what this paper covers. The
alternative is to think of another label in which
case a lot of re-badging will be necessary. But in
either event, an I.S. is just what this paper shows
it to be.
organisations get, but they do not appear to find
them endearing.
So an I.S. is constantly evolving, formal rules
are frequently updated as some ad hoc decisions
are repeated often enough to make them worth
formalising, and some formal rules may be
obsolete or even wrong, or contradictory with
new rules. Major organisational changes will
require marching I.S changes.
The definition of I.S. given here
An I.S. is I.T. in Use
6. Implications
can be ignored – and we can continue with
the same success rate with I.S.
You cannot build an I.S. You can build an
I.T. system, but remembering to leave enough
flexibility for frequent small changes, with a
flexible enough architecture to allow major
changes periodically as they are needed. The
latter might be project based, but not in the
Requirements Engineering level of detail
currently being used, rather at a more basic
structures level. Small changes need a dedicated
team of gardeners, or a combination of
application software and user literacy so as to
allow the user to tailor the system as they use it.
There is major ongoing decision as to how
much of the business you formalise in the I.T.,
which provides fast and accurate processing, and
how much you trust to the users whose strength
is adaptability, flexibility and problem solving.
Not enough trust in the users will restrain them
from running the organisation effectively, and
too much of the decision making in the hands of
users could make them too slow, and make
understanding what is going on difficult.
It follows then that I.S. in practice need many
skills to be made effective; Computer Scientist
and Software Engineers for the I.T.; HCI and
psychology for the users; specialists who
understand the organisation well enough to be
able to call in experts from any appropriate
discipline to help with the I.S. This should be the
role of an I.S specialist, multi-disciplinary and
with a systems approach.
Academic research in I.S. scarcely touches
the major issues raised above, that is even when
it is on those rare occasions addressing real
problems. Research should be practice focussed,
not focussing on theory since at the moment our
ignorance is not worth theorising about.
References
[1] Barnes J (1995) A history of the world in
10½ chapters Cambridge University Press
[2] Bokhari R and Paul R J (2009) User
participation does not guarantee to improve
the chance of system success. In preparation.
[3] Géricault, Th (1819) The raft of the Medusa
Use Google to search on ‘Medusa Géricault
Louvre’ and go to the Louvre site.
7. Conclusions
This paper offers a clear simple explanation
of what an I.S. is in practice. Whether I.S. stands
for Information Systems or Investigative
31